But get back to you on what?I know that Iran can launch missiles that can hit Israel. I also know that Israel has nuclear weapons that can hit Iran.I think one begets the other...Its a reality.

Why does Israel have these nukes RayJay?

Colin Powell alluded to Israel having an arsenal of “200 nuclear weapons.” While this number appears to be an exaggeration, there is no doubt that Israel does have a small but powerful nuclear stockpile, spread out among its armed forces. Israeli nuclear weapons guard against everything from defeat in conventional warfare to serving to deter hostile states from launching nuclear, chemical and biological warfare attacks against the tiny country. Regardless, the goal is the same: to prevent the destruction of the Jewish state

It strikes me that the very same reasons Israel has nuclear weapons, seem to be the reasons NK has them.

It also strikes me that when you say this ...

They may have slowed their development of the nuclear weapons (by developing them in secret)

You seem to reveal that you are being informed by Infowars or Brietbart. You have no evidence that Iran is doing anything in secret. The IAEA inspectors have plenty of evidence that compliance is occurring. That doesn't stop conspiracy theorists from making wild claims. Nor does the work of the IAEA in verifying compliance have any sway. No you want to listen to Netanyahu, Huckabee, Cruz, Kristol, Adelson, et al., all of whom were wrong on the last high-stakes judgment call about US interests in the Middle East. The Iraq War..https://armscontrolcenter.org/the-real- ... otiations/

I think Iran is giving up on its nuclear program because it feels it has enough of a deterrent to Israel or Saudi Arabia without nukes. And because the benefits of meeting the terms of the treaty are great.

I think NK is pursuing missiles because their great leader is paranoid and believes that he requires the ability to hit mainland US in order to deter the US from invading. He will continue to pursue this unless he is persuaded otherwise.

First of all, one uncorroborated source from over 2 years ago doesn't represent evidence. Anyone can google "Iran missile Europe" and copy a link.

Second, what I meant to write was "When they have missiles that can reach another of the 5 plus 1 countries and say that they want to eliminate those countries get back to me." That's why my statement followed 14 statements by Iranian leaders calling for destroying Israel. Perhaps you should read them again. This time replace "Zionist Entity" with "Canada".

Ricky:

Why does Israel have these nukes RayJay?

It is possible that they saved the country from annihilation in 1973. At that time as well many countries were calling for the elimination of Israel.

Ricky:

It also strikes me that when you say this ...They may have slowed their development of the nuclear weapons (by developing them in secret)

You seem to reveal that you are being informed by Infowars or Brietbart. You have no evidence that Iran is doing anything in secret. The IAEA inspectors have plenty of evidence that compliance is occurring. That doesn't stop conspiracy theorists from making wild claims.

First of all, I consciously used the word "may" because I have no idea. I've bolded and underlined it here so you can see it. Really none of us know certain details here and it is best to be cautious. In fact, the protocols of IAEA inspections is at the core of the issues here.

Second, I don't read Infowars or Breitbart. You just are smearing me because your arguments are weak and your emotional maturity is low. How would you feel if I said some of your comments sound like you are being informed by RT?

Ricky:

No you want to listen to Netanyahu, Huckabee, Cruz, Kristol, Adelson, et al., all of whom were wrong on the last high-stakes judgment call about US interests in the Middle East. The Iraq War..

I agree with you that the Iraq war was a mistake and that Israel wasn't helpful. (Although it's clear that the decisions were made by Bush and Cheney, and to a lesser extent by Rice and Rumsfeld.) On the other hand the Israelis were extremely helpful in knocking out Iraqi nuclear capability in 1981 and the Syrian capability in 2007. These are two countries that have used chemical weapons (WMDs) against their own people. The Israelis may have saved us from two holocausts.

The references to Syria, Iraq, and Iran nuclear weapons are a sidebar, but also relevant to the discussion on NK. Sometimes what appears as the riskiest short term move is the safest long term move.

Ricky:

It strikes me that the very same reasons Israel has nuclear weapons, seem to be the reasons NK has them.

Frankly, I think this is the crux of the problem with Ricky's way of thinking. The reasons are very different. Israel is a democracy whose nuclear weapons are meant to protect the survival of its people, whereas Iran and NK are terrible totalitarian regimes whose nuclear weapons (or eventual nuclear weapons in the case of Iran) are meant to protect the survival of their regimes.

First of all, one uncorroborated source from over 2 years ago doesn't represent evidence

Here's another ...

Tal Inbar, the head of space research at the Fisher Institute for Air and Space Strategic Studies in Herzliya, said that with their 2,500 km. range, the Soumar missile unveiled by the Islamic Republic on Sunday "entails a 25 percent increase in the range of Iran’s missiles, and if we consider the future possibility that the missiles would be deployed on ships and submarines, we see the ability to project their power worldwide.

They may have slowed their development of the nuclear weapons (by developing them in secret

you are engaging in the same kind of smear they regularly engage upon ... You know better that it is ...

In fact, the protocols of IAEA inspections is at the core of the issues here.

If thats the point. Then where's the evidence that the IAEA is somehow failing? If it were, then we should all be worried. However there is nothing of the kind presented by those who like to claim the Iranian deal is bad.

rayjay

Frankly, I think this is the crux of the problem with Ricky's way of thinking. The reasons are very different. Israel is a democracy whose nuclear weapons are meant to protect the survival of its people, whereas Iran and NK are terrible totalitarian regimes whose nuclear weapons (or eventual nuclear weapons in the case of Iran) are meant to protect the survival of their regimes.

You make a distinction where strategically there is no difference.Both NK and Israel have developed nuclear weapons for exactly the same reason. As a deterrent to nations that they perceive have the eradication of their nations as a goal. In fact its why Pakistan and India have nukes. And indeed why every nation that has nuclear weapons decided to develop the capability.

On the other hand Iran has given up nuclear weapons. I think because they have assured themselves that they have a sufficient deterrent to nations that seek to destroy Iran. And because the benefit to giving them up, removal of sanctions and a return to world trade and commerce... were great.

I can't understand how anyone can persist in believing that Trump has absorbed the knowledge, skills or temperament required to master his position in the last few months. Nor has he ever demonstrated these abilities before at any stage of his life. He demonstrates daily that there is nothing beneath the surface. Anyone who still thinks he has the capabilities is merely hopefully projecting..

Startling new evidence from German intelligence reports shows the Tehran regime is working to illegally obtain technology and know-how to advance its nuclear weapons and missile programs, despite the 2015 agreement to curb its nuclear program.

A report from the state of Hamburg holds that “there is no evidence of a complete about-face in Iran’s atomic polices in 2016” [after the Islamic Republic signed the JCPOA deal with Western powers in 2015, aimed at restricting Tehran’s nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief]. Iran sought missile carrier technology necessary for its rocket program.”

The report noted that the federal prosecutor filed criminal charges against three German citizens for violations of the export economic law due to the deliveries of 51 special valves to Iranian company that can be used for the Islamic Republic’s sanctioned Arak heavy water reactor. The installation, the intelligence officials wrote, “can be used to develop plutonium for nuclear weapons.” Iran pledged, under the JCPOA deal, to “dismantle the [Arak] facility,” the intelligence report states.

On the proliferation of atomic, biological and chemical weapons, a second report from Baden-Württemberg’s state intelligence agency report states: “Regardless of the number of national and international sanctions and embargoes, countries like Iran, Pakistan and North Korea are making efforts to optimize corresponding technology.”

The 181-page document outlines the technology Iran is seeking: “Products and scientific know-how for the field of developing weapons of mass destruction as well [as] missile technology.”

Iran’s illegal procurement and terrorist activities are cited 49 times in the report and range from cyberwarfare to espionage to support of the EU- and U.S.-classified terrorist organization Hezbollah.

The Baden-Württemberg report provides detail on Iran’s development of ballistic missiles with the aid of a Chinese front company. A Chinese import-export business approached a company in the southern German state that manufactures “complex metal producing machines” to buy equipment.

Berlin’s Federal Office for Economic Affairs and Export Control requested an end-use receipt for the Iranian purchase. The intelligence agency informed the engineering company that the merchandise was set to be unlawfully diverted to Iran. “This case shows that so-called indirect-deliveries across third countries is still Iran’s procurement strategy,” wrote the intelligence officials.

If thats the point. Then where's the evidence that the IAEA is somehow failing? If it were, then we should all be worried. However there is nothing of the kind presented by those who like to claim the Iranian deal is bad.

1. The IAEA is not allowed access to military sites.2. The IAEA must give 24 or even 59 days before initiating the inspection. In that time documents can be destroyed, people can be moved, activities can be covered up.3. We don't have a baseline of what nuclear activities they have done in the past so we don't know if developments are old or violate the agreement.

The IAEA has the authority to request access to facilities in Iran, including military ones, if there are new and credible indications of banned nuclear activities there, according to officials from the agency and signatories to the deal.

But they said Washington has not provided such indications to back up its pressure on the IAEA to make such a request.

“We’re not going to visit a military site like Parchin just to send a political signal,” an IAEA official said, mentioning a military site often cited by opponents of the deal including Iran’s arch-adversary Israel and many U.S. Republicans. The deal was struck under Trump’s Democratic predecessor Barack Obama.

Its not easy to hide evidence of fissionable material. Atomic signatures remain for a very long time. So far, the US has provided no evidence to the IAEA that it can use to justify increased inspections.... I would think that the US would want to ensure weapons grade nuclear material isn't being produced and would want these inspections to occur... So can we conclude there's no evidence on offer?It is in the interests of every nation signing the agreement to ensure Iran complies... Not just the US. All that the US critics offer is "conspiracy grade" supposition. Meanwhile the IAEA inspectors continue their work. McMaster, Kelly, Tillerson all want the Iran protocols to continue. These, I believe, are sensible men who are the best informed on the topic in Washington.

The IAEA has the authority to request access to facilities in Iran, including military ones, if there are new and credible indications of banned nuclear activities there, according to officials from the agency and signatories to the deal.

Do you realize that "authority to request access" is not the same as "allowed access"?